THE  J.  PAUL  GETTY  MUSEUM  LIBRARY 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016  with  funding  from 
Getty  Research  Institute 


https://archive.org/details/vandyckhisoriginOOhind 


; kid  Otlginai  Stckingd 
and  kid  S^cono^fzajjk^ 


.s 


Van  DrcK.  Pobtkait  of  the  Aktist 
Etching.  From  an  impression  of  the  first  state  in  the  British  Museum 


YAN  DYCK 

HIS  ORIGINAL  ETCHINGS  AND 
HIS  ICONOGRAPHY 


BY 

ARTHTJK  M.  HIND 

OF  THE  DEPASTMENT  OF  PRINTS  AND  DEAWINOS 
BRITISH  MUSEDH 


BOSTON  AND  NEW  YORK 
HOUGHTON  MIFFLIN  COMPANY 
MDCCCCXV 


N £ 
LLU 


COPYRIGHT,  1915,  BY  MUSEUM  OF  FINE  ARTS,  BOSTON 


ALL  RIGHTS  RESERVED 


Published  November 


Mfc  PAUL  GLnV  I.;UGEUM  LIBRARY 


CONTENTS 


Van  Dyck:  His  Original  Etchings  and  his  Iconography  5 
List  of  Van  Dyck’s  Original  Etchings loi 


First  published  in  The  Print-Collector's  Quarterly^ 
Vol.  V»  Nos.  1 and  2 (February  and  April,  1915). 
Now  issued  in  revised  form. 


ILLUSTRATIONS 


Portrait  of  the  Artist Frontispiece 

British  Mitseum 

Titian  and  his  Mistress 3 

British  Museum 

Frans  Snyders  7 

British  Museum 

Frans  Snyders 9 

British  Museum 

Jan  Brueghel,  the  Elder 13 

British  Museum 

Desiderius  Erasmus  (after  Holbein) 15 

British  Museum 

The  Reed  offered  to  Christ 19 

British  Museum 

Petrus  Stevens,  by  Lucas  Vorsterman  (or  Van  Dyck?)  . . 21 

British  Museum 

Paul  de  Vos 25 

British  Museum 

Adam  van  Noort 27 

British  Museum 

Jan  de  Wael 31- 

British  Museum 

Erycius  Puteanus 33 

From  the  original  sepia  drawing  in  the  British  Museum 

Pieter  Brueghel,  the  Younger 37 

From  the  original  chalk  drawing  in  the  collection  oj  the  Duke  of 
Devonshire,  Chatsworth 

Pieter  Brueghel,  the  Younger 39 

British  Museum 
vii 


Frans  Francken,  the  Younger 43 

British  Museum 

Justus  Sustermans 45 

British  Museum 

Frockas,  Count  de  Feria 49 

From  the  original  chalk  drawing  in  the  collection  of  the  Duke  of 
Devonshire,  Chaisworth 

Frockas,  Count  de  Feria 51 

From  the  oil  grisaille  panel  in  the  collection  of  the  Duke  of 
Buccleuch,  Montagu  House 

Frockas,  Count  de  Feria 53 

British  Museum 

Carel  de  Mallery 55 

From  the  painting  in  the  AUe  Pinakothek,  Munich 

Carel  de  Mallery 57 

From  the  original  chalk  drawing  in  the  collection  of  the  Duke  of 
Devonshire,  Chaisworth 

Carel  de  Mallery 59 

From  the  oil  grisaille  panel  in  the  collection  of  the  Duke  of 
Buccleuch,  Moviagu  House 

Carel  de  Mallery 61 

British  Museum 

Paul  Pontius 65 

British  Museum 

Paul  Pontius 67 

British  Museum 

Willem  de  Vos 71 

British  Museum 

Antonis  Cornelissen 73 

From  the  oil  grisaille  panel  in  the  collection  of  the  Duke  of 
Buccleuch,  Montagu  House 

Antonis  Cornelissen,  by  Van  Dyck  (or  Lucas  Vorsterman?)  . 75 

British  Museum 

Jodocus  de  Momper,  by  Lucas  Vorsterman  (or  Van  Dyck?)  . 79 

British  Museum 

Jodocus  de  Momper 81 

British  Museum 
will 


Jan  Waverius,  by  Van  Dyck  (?)  and  Paul  Pontius  ....  85 

British  Museum 

Philippe  Le  Roy 87 

British  Museum 

Jan  Snellinx 91 

British  Museum 

Antoine  Triest,  Bishop  of  Ghent,  by  Van  Dyck  (?)  and 

Pieter  de  Jode,  the  Younger 93 

British  Museum 

Lucas  Vorsterman 97 

British  Museum 

Lucas  Vorsterman,  by  Frans  van  den  Wyngaerde  ....  99 

British  Museum 


ix 


2)yck;  hid  Otiginai  Stckingd 
and  kid  S^conog'Ciydkg 


Van  Dyck.  Titian  and  his  Mistress 
After  the  painting  by  Titian 

Etching.  From  an  impression  of  the  first  state  in  the  British  Museum 


VAN  DYCK: 

HIS  ORIGINAL  ETCHINGS  AND 
HIS  ICONOGRAPHY 


I 


[AN  DYCK  is  not  so  widely  known  as  Rem- 
brandt in  the  capacity  of  original  etcher. 
Both  were  most  prolific  painters,  and  Rem- 
brandt almost  equally  prolific  in  etching. 
But  with  Van  Dyck  original  etching  was  only  a small 
phase  of  his  activity,  twenty-one  etchings  at  the  most 
forming  his  complete  work  in  this  field.  Two  of  the 
twenty-one  are  subjects,  the  Reed  offered  to  Christ,  an 
original  composition  of  Van  Dyck,  and  Titian  and  his 
Mistress,  after  Titian.^  The  rest  are  portraits,  and  the 
majority  among  the  most  masterly  plates  produced  in 
the  whole  history  of  portrait  etching.  In  fact,  in  spite 
of  the  limitations  of  his  practice  of  the  art.  Van  Dyck  has 
no  rival  as  an  etcher  of  portrait  except  Rembrandt.  And 


1 The  etching  may  have  been  based  on  the  picture  attributed  to 
Titian  in  the  collection  of  Captain  Archibald  Morrison,  at  Basildon 
Park.  See  below,  List  of  Van  Dyck's  Original  Etchings.  There  is  a 
sketch  after  this  or  another  version  of  the  picture  in  Van  Dyck’s 
Sketch  Book  at  Chatsworth  (see  Lionel  Gust,  A Description  of  the  Sketch 
Book  by  Sir  Anthony  Van  Dyck  used  by  him  in  Italy  1621-1627,  and 
preserved  in  the  Collection  of  the  Duke  of  Devonshire,  K.G.,  at  Chats- 
worth. London,  1902.  4°). 


5 


on  the  basis  of  the  purest  style  and  safest  conventions 
of  the  art  Van  Dyck  may  even  claim  the  precedence.  I 
do  not  thereby  mean  that  he  was  the  greater  master.  He 
was  a genius  of  wonderful  brilliance,  but  never  showed 
the  same  depth  of  inspiration  as  Rembrandt.  Rem- 
brandt’s was  unquestionably  the  deeper  insight  into 
human  character.  But  the  very  power  of  his  vision  may 
in  the  end  have  militated  against  his  success  in  portrait. 

In  his  later  portrait  etchings,  such  as  that  of  the  Old 
Haaring,  we  feel  that  Rembrandt  renders  the  complexi- 
ties of  human  nature  with  the  greatest  subtlety  of 
expression,  and  to  attain  his  end  he  used  a method  of 
close  shading  almost  too  subtle  for  the  medium  of  etch- 
ing. He  may  have  seen  even  more  in  his  sitters  than 
their  own  friends  realized,  and  perhaps  failed  to  con- 
centrate on  the  more  striking  external  characteristics 
which  would  constitute  the  whole  man  to  the  world  of 
his  acquaintance.  Moreover  he  was  capable  of  thinking 
less  of  immediate  faithfulness  to  the  lineaments  of  his 
model  than  of  some  more  strictly  artistic  aim,  just  as  in 
his  later  pictures  portraiture  pure  and  simple  becomes 
subservient  to  the  development  of  his  ideas  of  chiar- 
oscuro. It  was  thus  that  his  famous  Night  Watch  heralded 
the  decline  of  his  popularity  with  the  fashionable  world 
of  sitters  who  wished  first  of  all  to  be  admired,  or  at  least 
recognized. 

We  cannot  imagine  Van  Dyck  falling  into  these  errors, 
or  rising  to  these  heights  of  disdain  for  the  popular  de- 
mand, as  one  may  prefer  to  interpret  Rembrandt’s  atti- 
tude. In  his  etching  he  was  incisive,  convincingly  direct, 
and  never  obscure  in  his  means  of  expression.  He  never 
sought  to  express  too  much,  was  faultless  in  adjudging 
the  proper  emphasis  to  the  outstanding  features  of  his 


6 


Van  Dyck.  Frans  Snyders 

Etching.  From  an  impression  of  the  first  state,  with  MS.  lettering,  in 
the  British  Museum 


Fra:nciscvs  Snyders 


/£NATl6irV'M,F£RARVM,  f-RVCTVVM.XT  OLERVM  PICTOR  AXTVZRPLt 
.4.^.  rMi  jfnxti  tf  Jtat  rffiw ' 


Van  Dtck.  Frans  Snyders 

Etching  and  line-engraving.  From  an  impression  of  the  third  state,  elabor- 
ated in  line-engraving  by  Jacob  Neefs,  in  the  British  Museum 


sitters,  and  showed  unerring  taste  in  rejecting  the  unes- 
sential. His  system  of  etching  responded  perfectly  to 
his  artistic  aim.  He  discarded  the  subtlety  of  tonal 
expression  which  is  more  properly  the  part  of  a painter, 
and  kept  to  an  open  system  of  line,  whose  simplicity  was 
all  the  more  convincing  on  account  of  its  very  limita- 
tions. The  system  demanded  a simplified,  and  thereby 
more  forcible,  style  of  portraiture.  His  method  of  con- 
centration was  in  direct  opposition  to  the  greater  part  of 
Rembrandt’s  later  paintings  and  some  also  of  his  etch- 
ings, where  the  face  was  brought  into  prominence  as  a 
high  light  in  the  midst  of  shadow.  Van  Dyck  merely 
indicates  the  secondary  portions  of  the  design  with  the 
fewest  lines,  the  face  being  the  only  part  at  all  elabor- 
ately handled,  though  never  so  elaborated  as  to  hide  the 
linear  structure  of  his  etchings.  It  was  a method  prac- 
tised by  Rembrandt  in  his  earlier  plates,  most  perfectly 
perhaps  in  the  Young  Man  with  Books  beside  him  (B.  268) 
and  used  only  occasionally  in  his  later  work,  e.g.  in  the 
Clement  de  Jonghe  of  1651  (B.  272). 

In  a few  cases  Van  Dyck  left  his  portraits  practically 
unfinished  except  for  the  head;  e.g.  the  Portrait  of 
Himself  (W.  4),  and  the  Frans  Snyders  (W.  11),  but  so 
placed  on  the  copper  as  to  lead  the  imagination  to  supply 
the  natural  basis  of  a body.  The  bad  effect  of  the  repro- 
duction of  the  Portrait  of  Himself  placed  in  the  centre  of 
the  page  in  the  frontispiece  to  Wibiral’s  standard  work, 
“L’Iconographie  d’ Antoine  Van  Dyck”  (1877),^  immedi- 
ately proves  the  immense  value  of  proper  spacing  in  the 
early  states  of  these  prints.  Both  these  plates  were  later 
elaborated  in  line-engraving  in  such  a way  as  to  destroy 

‘ L’Iconographie  d’ Antoine  Van  Dyck.  . . . Fr.  Wibiral,  Leipzig, 
1877.  4°. 


11 


almost  completely  the  concentration  and  virtue  of  the 
portrait. 

What  was  Van  Dyck’s  attitude  to  these  develop- 
ments of  his  work  we  can  best  discuss  after  setting  forth 
in  more  concrete  detail  the  artist’s  aims  and  accom- 
plishment in  the  series  of  etchings  and  engravings,  which 
make  up  the  corpus  of  portrait  prints  generally  described 
as  the  “Iconography  of  Van  Dyck.” 

Whether  the  idea  of  this  series  of  engraved  portraits 
was  originally  Van  Dyck’s,  or  the  project  of  a publisher, 
cannot  be  answered  with  any  certainty.  Towards  the 
end  of  the  sixteenth  century  and  in  the  early  seventeenth 
such  series  had  apparently  been  popular  and  successful 
ventures  with  numerous  publishers  and  engraver- 
printsellers.  The  majority  of  these  series  had  been  essen- 
tially the  works  of  the  publishers,  who  had  included 
works  by  various  engravers  (e.g.,  the  famous  English 
“Bazili®iogia”  ^ of  Henry  Holland,  1618). 

A few  similar  ventures  had  been  more  exclusively  the 
work  of  a single  man,  or  at  least  of  a single  workshop, 
such  as  J.  J.  Boissard’s  leones  virorum  illustrium  (Frank- 
fort, 1597-99),  with  engravings  by  Theodor  de  Bry,  and 
the  Atrium  Heroicum  of  Dominicus  Gustos  (Augsburg, 
1600).  But  I can  point  to  no  series  of  portraits  before 
the  Iconography  of  Van  Dyck,  which  aimed  at  repro- 
ducing the  paintings  of  one  artist  alone. 

If  Van  Dyck  was  the  initiator,  he  would  not  have  had 
to  go  far  for  his  suggestion.  His  master,  Rubens,  had,  at 
least  since  1620,  a constant  staff  of  engravers  working 
under  his  direction  and  in  his  studio,  and  no  doubt  car- 
ried on  a thriving  trade  in  the  sale  of  prints  after  his  own 
works.  With  this  precedent,  Van  Dyck  is,  I think,  more 

' Recently  edited  for  the  Grolier  Club  by  Mr.  H.  C.  Levis. 


Van  Dyck.  Jan  Brceghel,  the  Elder 

Etching.  From  an  impression  of  the  first  state,  with  MS.  lettering, 
in  the  British  Museum 


# 


Van  Dyck.  Desidehius  Erasmus 
After  Holbein 

Etching.  From  an  impression  of  the  first  state  in  the  British  Museum 
This  plate  was  ruined  from  the  beginning  by  foul  biting 


likely  to  have  formulated  his  scheme  on  his  own  account, 
than  to  have  carried  out  his  undertaking  at  a publisher’s 
suggestion.  Moreover  the  title-page  of  the  1645  edition 
of  the  Iconography  expressly  describes  the  plates  as  en- 
graved at  the  master’s  expense. 

The  original  scheme  was  a corpus  of  engraved  por- 
traits in  three  main  classes:  — 

I.  Princes  and  military  commanders. 

II.  Statesmen  and  philosophers. 

III.  Artists  and  amateurs. 

The  first  publisher  who  printed  the  series,  Martin  van 
den  Enden,  issued  eighty  plates,  sixteen  belonging  to  the 
first  class,  twelve  to  the  second,  and  fifty-two  to  the 
third.  The  correspondence  of  watermarks  within  each 
class  (in  the  early  issue)  convinced  Wibiral  that  they 
were  each  issued  originally  as  a limited  corpus.  If  this 
had  not  been  so,  one  would  have  expected  the  several 
watermarks  which  occur  throughout  the  first  issue  of 
Martin  van  den  Enden  to  be  found  promiscuously 
among  any  of  the  classes. 

But  there  is  no  definite  evidence  to  prove  that  the 
complete  set  of  eighty  was  ever  issued  as  a corpus  with 
a title-page  and  Martin  van  den  Enden’s  imprint.  Per- 
haps the  lack  of  this  evidence  adds  support  to  the  theory 
that  during  his  life-time  Van  Dyck  was  the  chief  mover 
in  the  enterprise,  and  Van  den  Enden  little  more  than 
his  printer.  As  to  the  date  at  which  the  work  was  being 
done  there  are  only  small  pieces  of  direct  evidence.  The 
enterprise  was  probably  started  soon  after  Van  Dyck’s 
return  from  Italy  to  Antwerp  in  1626,  and  it  seems  that 
Van  Dyck  must  have  continued  the  direction  of  the 
engraved  plates  several  years  after  his  settlement  in 
England  in  1632.  There  is  a letter  of  Van  Dyck  in  the 


17 


British  Museum  first  quoted  by  Carpenter/  in  which 
the  master  writes  in  1636  to  Francis  Junius,  the  Earl 
of  Arundel’s  librarian,  asking  him  to  suggest  a proper 
inscription  for  the  engraved  portrait  of  Sir  Kenelm 
Digby.  This  portrait  comes  within  the  second  class,  so 
that  it  was  probably  not  till  well  after  this  date  that  the 
series  had  been  completed. 

Mr.  Oust  also  mentions  the  date  1628  as  occurring  in 
Van  Dyck’s  original  drawing  for  the  engraving  of  Carlo 
Colonna  (in  the  collection  of  Mr.  Claude  A.  C.  Pon- 
sonby,  in  1900),  while  1630  is  written  in  a contemporary 
hand  on  an  early  state  of  one  of  Van  Dyck’s  subject 
etchings,  the  Reed  offered  to  Christ,  preserved  in  the 
Albertina,  Vienna.  Moreover  Lucas  Vorsterman,  who 
only  returned  to  Antwerp  about  1630-31,  after  a long 
visit  to  England,  was  responsible  for  two  of  the  engrav- 
ings of  the  first  class,  so  that  this  class  can  only  have 
been  completed  in  1631  at  the  earliest. 

The  series  of  eighty  plates  printed  by  Martin  van  den 
Enden  included  three  plates  whose  etching  has  been 
attributed  to  Van  Dyck  by  various  authorities  during 
the  XIXth  century,  although  the  inscriptions  claim 
nothing  more  than  the  painting  for  Van  Dyck,  i.e.,  the 
portraits  of  A.  CorneKssen  (W.  3),  Antoine  Triest  (W.  13), 
and  Jan  Waverius  (W.  18).  I will  recur  to  this  question 
in  connection  with  other  uncertain  attributions  to  the 
master.  The  fifteen  plates  bearing  Van  Dyck’s  signa- 
ture as  etcher  were  never  published  by  Martin  van  den 
Enden,  and  were  only  included  in  the  “ Iconography” 
after  Van  Dyck’s  death  in  the  edition  published  by  Gillis 


* W.  H.  Carpenter,  Pictorial  Notices,  consisting  of  a Memoir  of  Sir 
Anthony  Van  Dyck,  with  a Descriptive  Catalogue  of  the  Etchings.  Lon- 
don, 1844. 


18 


Van  Dyck.  The  Reed  offered  to  Christ 


Etching.  From  an  impression  of  the  first  state  in  the  British  Museum 


Lucas  Vohstehman  (or  Van  Dyck;?).  Petrus  Stevens 
Etching.  From  an  impression  of  the  first  state  in  the  British  Museum 


>y->. 


Hendricx  in  1645.  Martin  van  den  Enden  had  included 
in  his  series  four  of  the  same  portraits  as  these  etchings 
(i.e.,  Van  Dyck,  Pontius,  Momper,  and  Snellinx),  but 
only  in  engraved  versions  whose  relation  to  the  etchings 
we  will  discuss  later.  We  have  even  less  definite  evi- 
dence as  to  the  date  of  production  of  these  etchings  than 
we  have  in  relation  to  the  engraved  plates.  Hendricx 
probably  acquired  the  plates  of  the  original  etchings  as 
well  as  the  eighty  plates  printed  by  Martin  van  den 
Enden,  after  Van  Dyck’s  death.  He  got  various  en- 
gravers to  elaborate  the  less  finished  of  the  fifteen  etch- 
ings, to  bring  them  more  into  line  with  the  rest  of  the 
series,  used  the  etched  portrait  of  Van  Dyck  in  its  elab- 
orated state  for  his  title-page,  and  added  six  other  en- 
gravings to  make  up  his  series  to  a hundred  plates 
exclusive  of  the  title.  The  title  on  the  pedestal  engraved 
as  a support  to  the  head  of  himself  etched  by  Van 
Dyck  runs  as  follows;  leones  | Principum  | Virorum  doc- 
torum  1 Pictorum  C halcographorum  [ Statuariorum  nec 
non  Amatorum  | Pictoriae  artis  numero  centum  | ab  | 
Antonio  Van  Dyck  | Pictore  ad  vivum  expressae  | eiusq: 
sumptibus  aeri  incisae  ] Antverpiae  | Gillis  Hendricx 
excudit  I A°  1645. 

Each  plate  in  this  edition  bears  the  initials  of  the 
publisher  G.  H.  in  the  centre  of  the  lower  margin.  A 
later  issue  by  Gillis  Hendricx  is  mentioned  by  Wibiral, 
in  which  about  five  plates  were  added,  and  the  date  1645 
omitted  from  the  title-page.  But  the  extreme  rarity  of 
original  bound  copies  and  the  fact  that  most  bound 
copies  are  made  up  from  different  sources  renders  it 
impossible  to  define  the  exact  contents  with  certainty. 
There  were  still  later  issues  without  the  date,  but  with 
the  same  imprint,  in  which  the  G.  H.  on  the  separate 


23 


plates  was  erased.  In  spite  of  Hendricx’s  name  remain^ 
ing  on  the  title,  it  is  doubtful  whether  he  published  any 
issue  of  the  plates  in  this  condition.  Very  probably  there 
were  several  re-printings  of  the  plates  in  this  state  from 
about  1660  until  the  beginning  of  the  XVIIIth  century, 
the  number  of  plates  included  being  a variable  quan- 
tity. It  is  known  that  110  of  the  original  plates  were 
in  the  hands  of  the  Brussels  publisher,  Fran§ois  Fop- 
pens,  about  1665.  Between  about  1640  and  1650  the 
Antwerp  publisher,  Jan  Meyssens,  had  published  a 
series  of  similar  engravings  after  Van  Dyck,  chiefly  after 
the  artist’s  English  pictures.  Wibiral  catalogues  thirty- 
four  of  these,  but  there  is  nothing  to  prove  that  Meys- 
sens ever  published  them  as  a corpus.  Some  of  them  are 
occasionally  found  in  the  later  editions  of  the  “Iconogra- 
phy ” which  still  bear  Hendricx’s  name  on  the  title-page. 
Meyssens  had  also  published  one  of  the  etchings,  i.e., 
Paul  de  Fos  (W.  16),  before  Hendricx’s  edition  of  1645- 
It  was  probably  he  who  completed  the  etching,  and  so 
maladroitly  that  it  must  have  been  after  Van  Dyck’s 
death.  It  is  inconceivable  that  the  master  would  have 
sanctioned  its  publication  in  that  ruined  form. 

Then  at  the  beginning  of  the  XVIIIth  century  an 
edition,  including  a hundred  and  twenty-four  plates  ex- 
clusive of  the  old  frontispiece  was  published  at  Antwerp 
by  H.  & C.  Verdussen,  whose  names  now  replaced 
Hendricx’s  on  the  old  title-page.  The  124  were  made  up 
by  81  plates  originally  issued  by  Martin  van  den  Enden, 
28  by  Gillis  Hendricx,  5 by  Jan  Meyssens,  3 by  Jacobus 
de  Man,  1 by  Lucas  Vorsterman  and  6 without  address. 
But  volumes  are  seldom  found  with  plates  correspond- 
ing to  the  table  of  contents. 

Wibiral’s  catalogue  includes  considerably  larger 


24 


Van  Dyck.  Paul  de  Vos 

Etching.  From  an  impression  of  the  first  state  in  the  British  Museum 


Van  Dtck.  Adam  van  Nooht 

Etching.  From  an  impression  of  the  second  state  in  the  British  Museum 
In  the  first  state  the  background  is  merely  indicated  with  a few  light  lines 


■ ;-W- 


■ ■ 


'-•'A 

''H>-  ,,,• 


numbers  of  plates  than  have  ever  appeared  even  in  the 
latest  editions  of  the  “Iconography.”  But  his  object  was 
to  include  practically  all  the  plates  of  similar  format  after 
Van  Dyck,  which  at  various  times  have  been  bound  up 
with  the  original  recueils. 

Of  later  issues  nothing  need  be  said.  A large  number 
of  the  original  copper-plates  were  sold  to  the  Louvre  in 
1851  by  a Liege  dealer,  Van  Marcke.  They  are  better 
reposing  in  a Museum,  as  for  several  years  prior  to  their 
purchase  fabrications  of  early  states,  made  by  blocking 
out  parts  of  the  plate  in  the  printing,  had  issued  from 
Liege. 

Modern  impressions  have  been  at  various  times 
printed  by  the  Chaicographie  du  Louvre,  and  it  is  re- 
markable how  well  these  clearly  bitten  plates  have  lasted. 
But  these  modem  prints  from  original  plates  which  have 
long  lost  all  their  quality,  are  of  even  less  artistic  value 
than  a good  reproduction  of  a fine  impression.  The 
same  may  be  said  of  the  modern  impressions  of  Piranesi 
issued  by  the  Regia  Calcografia  at  Rome.  But  in  the 
latter  case  the  original  plates  are  over  a century  more 
recent,  and  the  lines  of  the  architectural  designs  of  such 
massive  strength  that  even  modern  impressions  are 
effective. 


The  collector  of  Van  Dyck’s  iconography  will  desire 
first  of  ail  to  possess  proof  impressions,  either  before 
letters,  or  with  lettering  incomplete.  For  the  detailed 
description  of  state  he  cannot  do  without  Wibirai,  and 
he  will  find  still  further  detail  in  Dutuit’s  Manuel  de 
V Amateur  d’Esiampes.  Here  we  can  only  describe  in 
broad  outlines  the  chief  distinctions  to  be  remembered. 


29 


Of  lettered  impressions  (often  the  earliest  known  in  the 
case  of  the  engravings)  the  collector  can  generally  rely 
on  those  with  the  address  of  the  publisher  Martin  van 
den  Enden.  The  same  may  be  said  of  those  bearing  the 
initials  of  the  publisher  Gillis  Hendricx,  G.  H.,  in  the 
centre  of  the  lower  margin.  Where  the  plates  passed 
from  Van  den  Enden  to  Hendricx,  one  may  often  remark 
richer  printing  in  the  later  states,  Hendricx  printed 
with  his  plate  fuller  of  ink  and  obtained  thereby  a 
stronger  impression.  But  the  thinner  and  somewhat 
less  professional  printing  of  Van  den  Enden  possesses 
finer  quality.  Nor  must  it  be  forgotten  that  Hendricx 
was  the  first  publisher  of  the  fifteen  most  important 
original  etchings,  as  well  as  of  nineteen  of  the  engrav- 
ings. Even  early  impressions  after  the  erasure  of  G.  H. 
still  retain  some  quality.  But  there  is  not  the  same  limit 
to  this  state.  Without  further  changes  on  the  plate 
(except  occasional  rebiting)  the  plates  went  on  deteri- 
orating throughout  the  centuries.  In  estimating  the 
date  of  an  impression  in  this  state  we  may  be  helped 
by  Wibiral’s  notes  on  watermarks,  but  a sense  of  quality 
is  a far  more  important  asset  to  the  collector  than  this 
knowledge  of  secondary  detail. 

Speaking  of  the  fifteen  original  etchings  first  pub- 
lished by  Hendricx  the  value  in  the  different  states 
might  be  roughly  estimated  as  follows. 

Early  proof  state  before  lettering  or  with  lettering  in 
MS.  from  £60  to  several  hundreds  of  pounds : impres- 
sions with  G,  H.  from  £5  to  £20:  early  impressions  after 
G.  H.  about  £2  or  £3.  The  line-engravings  never  have 
the  same  value  as  the  original  etchings;  the  earliest  proof 
states  being  worth  perhaps  less  than  etchings  in  the 
G.  H.  state;  and  impressions  with  the  address  of  Martin 

30 


Van  Dyck.  Jan  de  Wabl 

Etching.  From  an  impression  of  the  second  state, 
in  the  British  Museum 

There  is  a unique  first  state  (not  described  by  Wibiral  or  Dutuit)  in  the  col- 
lection of  Baron  Edmond  de  Rothschild,  Paris.  It  is  before  the  background 


/ 


Van  Dyck.  Ertcius  Puteanus 

From  a sepia  drawing  in  the  British  Museum,  a study  for  the  engraving 
by  Pieter  de  Jode,  the  Younger 


van  den  Enden,  or  G.  H.  seldom  more  than  good  impres- 
sions of  the  etchings  after  the  erasure  of  G.  H.  But  of 
course  small  differences  in  detail  in  different  subjects 
may  cause  considerable  variations  from  these  standard 
prices. 

Van  Dyck’s  attitude  towards  his  own  original  etch- 
ings in  relation  to  the  ‘ ‘ Iconography  ” is  an  obscure  ques- 
tion, and  extremely  difficult  of  solution.  Did  he,  at  the 
inception  of  his  great  project,  intend  to  lay  the  founda- 
tion of  each  plate  by  etching  with  his  own  hand  the  face 
and  perhaps  the  indication  of  the  figure,  leaving  the 
elaboration  of  the  plate  to  his  assistant  engravers?  Or 
were  his  original  etchings  for  the  most  part  essays  under- 
taken by  the  way,  with  a more  purely  artistic  aim  and 
with  no  immediate  intention  of  incorporation  in  the 
“Iconography”? 

A survey  of  Van  Dyck’s  method  of  procedure  through- 
out the  “ Iconography,”  and  a critical  examination  of 
the  etchings  by,  and  attributed  to.  Van  Dyck,  may  offer 
some  illumination  on  this  and  other  points. 

The  chief  stages  through  which  each  subject  passed 
were : — 

I.  Van  Dyck’s  original  sketch. 

II.  An  oil  grisaille,  which  served  as  the  more  immedi- 
ate original  in  detail  for  the  engraver. 

III.  The  etching  or  engraving. 

. In  the  case  of  about  thirty  subjects  out  of  the  hundred 
published  by  Hendricx,  we  can  also  refer  back  to  some 
larger  oil-painting  which  may  have  been  the  ultimate 
source,  though  not  the  immediate  original. 

When  he  had  already  done  a picture  of  his  subject 
Van  Dyck  would  no  doubt  have  used  it  in  making  his 
sketch  for  the  “Iconography.”  In  some  cases  the  original 


35 


pictures  were  followed  fairly  closely,  those  of  Antoine 
Triest  and  Jan  Waverius  (both  in  Petrograd)  and 
Card  de  Mallery  (Munich),  while  in  others  he  varied  his 
subject  so  as  to  bring  it  within  the  form  of  his  series  (tak- 
ing the  figure  of  Jan  de  Wael,  from  the  picture  of  Jan 
de  Wael  and  his  Wife  in  Munich).  In  a few  instances  his 
subjects  were  based  on  paintings  by  other  artists  {Eras- 
mus, after  Holbein,  and  Gustavus  Adolphus,  Tilly,  and 
Wallenstein  from  some  unknown  sources). 

The  first  sketches  are  for  the  most  part  in  black  chalk. 
Occasionally  the  black  chalk  is  washed  with  Indian  ink 
{Hubert  van  den  Eynden,  in  the  British  Museum,  L.B.^ 
22),  and  there  are  other  examples  in  which  sepia  pre- 
dominates {Erycius  Puteanus  in  the  British  Museum, 
L.B.  20).  They  are  remarkably  vigorous  and  vivid, 
in  spite  of  the  fact  that  a large  number  could  not  have 
been  done  from  the  life.  The  drawings  most  likely  to 
have  been  done  from  life  are  the  portraits  of  con- 
temporary Netherlandish  artists. 

The  collections  to  which  I can  refer  as  possessing  some 
of  these  first  sketches  are  the  British  Museum  {Puteanus, 
Rockox,  H.  van  den  Eynden,  Sebastian  Vrancx,  Hendrik 
Liberti,  and  Orazio  Gentileschi) ; Chatsworth  (P.  Brue- 
ghel II,  H.  van  Balen,  Jan  Snellinx,  Jan  van  Mildert, 
Gaspar  de  Grayer,  Carel  de  Mallery,  Frockas  de  Feria)] 
the  Residenz  at  Weimar  {F.  Franck  II,  and  S.  de  Fos); 
Paris  {Theodor  van  Thulden) ; The  Albertina,  Vienna 
{Jan  van  Ravesteyn,  Petrus  Stevens,  Artus  Wolf  art,  G. 
Gevartius);  Stockholm  (C.  van  der  Geest);  Frankfort 
{Adam  de  Coster);  Amsterdam  {Adam  van  Noort),  and 
the  Teyler  Museum,  Haarlem  (P.  Brueghel  II). 

There  are  probably  a good  many  copies  in  existence, 

1 L.  Binyon,  Catalogue  of  Drawings  by  British  Artists,  and  Artists  of 
Foreign  Origin  working  in  Great  Britain,  preserved  in  the  British  Museum. 


36 


Van  Dyck.  Pieter  Brueghel,  the  Younger 

From  a chalk  drawing  in  the  collection  of  the  Duke  of  Devonshire, 
Chatsworth.  A study  for  the  etching 


PETERV0  BRVCiEL  Pl  CTOiv 

PETRVS  BREVGEL 


Van  Dyck.  Pieteb  Bbceghel,  the  Younger 

Etching.  From  an  impression  of  the  first  state,  with  MS.  lettering,  in 
the  British  Museum 


H 


ii 

i 


'j 


and  I would  specially  refer  to  one  in  the  British  Museum, 
from  the  Malcolm  collection,  reproduced  as  Van  Dyck  in 
Mr.  Lionel  Gust’s  standard  work,  which  is  a copy  from 
the  original  Adam  de  Coster  in  Frankfort.  The  compari- 
son of  the  two  versions  is  a good  test  of  quality. 

The  drawing  of  Peter  Brueghel  II,  in  Haarlem,  repro- 
duced by  Kleinmann,  is  one  of  the  few  sketches  for  the 
‘ ‘ Iconography  ’ ’ in  pen  and  sepia.  It  is  slighter  than  usual, 
but  peculiarly  interesting  as  indicating  the  development 
of  the  subject  from  the  Chatsworth  sketch  to  the  etch- 
ing. Two  hands  are  given  in  the  Chatsworth  study,  and 
the  simplification  and  concentration  of  the  subject 
gained  by  the  omission  of  one  hand,  and  other  slight 
changes  carried  out  in  the  etching,  are  shown  in  the 
Haarlem  pen  sketch. 

In  the  oil  grisaille  panels,  which  are  of  about  the  same 
size  as  the  plates,  the  subjects  are  worked  out  in  more 
detail,  and  are  nearly  always  followed  closely  in  the  en- 
gravings. In  by  far  the  majority  of  cases  the  prints  are 
in  reverse  to  the  drawings  and  oil  grisailles,  and  there  is 
practically  no  doubt  the  grisailles  formed  the  immediate 
original  from  which  the  engravers  worked.  One  would 
expect  the  engraver  himself  to  make  a drawing  as  his 
guide,  but  I have  come  across  no  drawing  which  I could 
safely  describe  as  an  engraver’s  drawing.  To  take  the 
nearest  approach  to  it  to  which  I can  refer : the  drawing 
of  Rockox  in  the  British  Museum.  This  drawing  in  chalk 
and  sepia  wash  is  undoubtedly  done  after  the  picture  in 
the  Lederer  collection,  Budapest  {Klassiker  der  Kunst, 
1909,  p.  165)  with  the  idea  of  translating  it  into  a form 
that  might  be  engraved  for  the  “ Iconography  ” (though 
the  oval  in  rectangle  is  not  the  usual  form  of  the  series) , as 
it  was  actually  done  by  Pontius  (W.  115).  It  certainly 


41 


lacks  Van  Dyck’s  usually  vivid  touch,  and  it  might  be 
the  engraver’s  drawing,  but  even  a master  may  lose  his 
vigour  in  working  after  a picture,  so  that  even  here  I 
would  hesitate  to  stamp  the  drawing  as  the  intermediate 
work  of  the  engraver. 

In  his  book  on  Van  Dyck,  Mr.  Lionel  Oust  classes  the 
oil  grisailles  as  the  works  of  assistants  based  on  Van 
Dyck’s  sketches  or  larger  paintings.  But  in  a recent 
letter  to  me  he  writes,  “ there  is  nothing  to  exclude  the 
possibility  of  Van  Dyck’s  having  done  some  of  these 
grisailles  himself,  or  begun  to  do  the  whole  thing  him- 
self, as  he  did  with  the  etchings.  In  view  however  of  his 
removal  to  London,  and  the  general  mode  of  life  adopted 
by  him  there,  I think  it  very  improbable  that  he  could 
have  devoted  much  time  to  the  laborious  production  of 
so  many  small  paintings,  as  the  series  demanded.  . . .” 
Then,  in  reference  to  the  Buccleuch  grisailles,  “ Some  are 
exceedingly  good,  and  quite  worthy  of  Van  Dyck  him- 
self, but  there  were  quite  competent  Van  Dyckists  in 
the  Rubens  school,  and  I expect  that  Van  Dyck  himself 
was  a keen  and  critical  supervisor  of  the  whole  output.” 
And  very  modestly  at  the  end  for  so  profound  a student 
of  Van  Dyck,  “Now  all  this  is  mere  assumption  on  my 
part  and  capable  of  disproof.” 

This  criticism  was  in  answer  to  a query  of  my  own  to 
Mr.  Oust  as  to  whether  he  had  in  any  way  modified  his 
attitude  towards  the  grisaille  panels  since  the  publica- 
tion of  his  book. 

As  to  the  panels  themselves,  the  largest  collection  is 
that  of  the  Duke  of  Buccleuch,  at  Montagu  House.  It 
contains  thirty-eight  of  the  original  designs  to  the  plates 
in  the  “ Iconography,”  ^ in  addition  to  a different  and 

^ Described,  but  with  incomplete  reference  to  the  engravings,  in  the 

42 


Van  Dyck.  Feans  Fbancken,  •tke  Yootqme 
Etching.  From  an  impression  of  the  second  state  in  the  British  Museum 


Van  Dyck.  Jubtos  SustermaNS 

Etching.  From  an  impression  of  the  first  state,  with  MS.  lettering, 
in  the  British  Museum 


I 


second  version  of  the  portrait  of  Rubens,  another  similar 
portrait  which  I have  been  unable  to  identify,  and  two 
later  copies  of  no  importance  from  originals  in  the  same 
collection.  Smith  in  his  “Catalogue  Raisonn6”  (vol. 
Ill,  p.  82)  states  that  the  whole  series  belonged  to  Sir 
Peter  Lely,  and  was  bought  at  his  sale  in  1680  by  Ralph 
Montagu.  The  collection  was  exhibited  at  the  Royal 
Academy,  Old  Masters,  in  1900. 

Then  there  are  ten  similar  panels  in  the  Alte  Pinako- 
thek,  Munich  (Nos.  851-860  in  the  Catalogue,  Ed.  1900),^ 
and  I hear  that  there  are  also  a few  in  the  collection  of 
the  Earl  of  St.  Germans,  at  Port  Eliot.^  It  is  several 
years  since  I examined  the  panels  in  Munich,  so  that  I 
will  confine  my  criticism  entirely  to  the  Montagu  House 

Montagu  House  Catalogue  of  1898.  The  portraits  are:  Cornelissen 
(W.  3),  Brouwer  (21),  Lipsius  (22),  Pepyn  (24),  Vranx  (25),  Wolf  art 
(27),  Francken  (28),  De  Coster  (31),  Colyn  de  Note  (34),  Genevikve 
d’Urpkee,  Comtesse  de  Croye  (39),  Van  Balen  (42),  Alvar  Bazan  (43), 
Colonna  (46),  Crayer  (46),  Frockas,  Comte  de  Feria  (47),  Geest  (48), 
Gevartius  (49),  Guzman  (50),  Pontius  (59),  Ravesteyn  (60),  Rubens 
(62),  Stalbent  (66),  S.  de  Vos  (69),  Van  Dyck  (79),  Gaston  de  France 
(82),  Jode  (84),  Mallery  (86),  N.  F.  de  Peiresc  (89),  Spinola  (92),  P. 
Stevens  (93),  Archduke  Ferdinand  (105),  Isabella  Clara  Eugenia  (116), 
Frangois  de  Moncada  (117),  Wilhelm  Wolfgang,  Count  Palatine  (118), 
Charles  I (119),  Pappenheim  (127),  Frederick  Henry  of  Orange  (151), 
Emilie  de  Solms,  Princess  of  Orange  (152). 

^ All  reproduced  by  Bruckmann,  and  five  by  Hanfstaengl.  The 
portraits  are:  Margaret  of  Lorraine  (23),  Tilly  (30),  Wallenstein  (40), 
Gustavus  Adolphus  (51),  Maria  de  Medicis  (54),  John  of  Nassau  (57), 
Palamedes  Palamedesz  (58),  Frangois  Thomas  de  Savoye,  Prince  de 
Carignan  (63),  Scaglia  (64),  Lucas  van  Uden  (94). 

^ The  Countess  of  St.  Germans  has  kindly  sent  me  a list:  — Paul 
Pontius  (9?),  Hendrik  van  Balen  (42),  Gaspar  de  Crayer  (46),  Cornelis 
van  der  Geest  (48),  Daniel  Myiens  (56),  A.  Stalbent  (66),  Simon  de  Vos 
(69),  Simon  Vouet  (74),  Van  Dyck  (7V),  Pieter  de  Jode  (104  or  84?). 
It  will  be  noted  that  certainly  six,  and  possibly  eight  of  these  are  the 
same  subjects  as  the  Buccleuch  panels.  Not  having  seen  the  Port 
Eliot  panels,  I can  offer  no  opinion  on  their  relation  to  those  at  Mon- 
tagu House.  But  if  the  Pontius  is  more  closely  connected  with  Van 
Dyck’s  original  etching  than  the  engraving  (59)  it  might  invalidate  one 
of  my  arguments  as  to  the  authenticity  of  the  Cornelissen,  i.e.,  the 
improbability  of  the  master  doing  a grisaille  for  his  own  etching. 

47 


panels,  which  I have  studied  at  leisure  in  comparison 
with  the  prints  on  two  recent  occasions.  The  photo- 
graphs which  the  late  Duke  of  Buccleuch  allowed  me  to 
have  taken  for  this  article,  are  I believe  the  first  repro- 
ductions that  have  been  made  from  any  of  his  series,  so 
that  they  are  by  no  means  widely  known. 

Personally  I see  no  reason  to  doubt  Van  Dyck’s 
authorship  of  the  whole  series  of  thirty-eight.  They  are 
brilliant  sketches  in  brown  oil  colours,  the  high  lights 
brought  out  in  white  with  the  sure  touch  of  a master. 
They  are  undoubtedly  rapid  sketches  such  as  a facile 
master  like  Van  Dyck  could  paint  in  an  hour,  or  a few 
hours  at  the  most.  I cannot  on  that  account  agree  with 
Mr.  Gust’s  description  of  the  painting  of  even  so  many 
of  these  panels  as  a laborious  production  for  which  the 
master  would  not  have  found  time.  Moreover,  apart 
from  their  expressive  power  as  portrait,  they  put  the 
scheme  of  light  and  shade  before  the  engraver  with  such 
conviction,  that  I am  unable  to  conceive  of  the  good 
assistant  who  could  have  accomplished  the  task  with 
such  brilliance  as  a mere  intermediary.  One  of  the 
strongest  arguments  for  Van  Dyck’s  authorship  is  that 
they  are  no  whit  less  brilliant,  and  sometimes  more  bril- 
liant, than  the  undisputed  chalk  sketches.  I have  repro- 
duced one  example,  the  portrait  of  Frockas,  Count  de 
Feria,  in  three  stages  to  illustrate  this  point.  The 
Chatsworth  chalk  drawing,  which  only  gives  a slight 
indication  of  the  figure,  is  a most  vigorous  sketch,  but 
the  Buccleuch  panel  is  so  surpassingly  brilliant  that  the 
hand  of  an  assistant  seems  to  me  out  of  the  question. 
Then  one  feels  a slight  descent  in  power  and  subtlety  of 
expression  to  the  engraving  by  Paul  Pontius,  in  spite  of 
its  excellent  craftsmanship. 


48 


Van  Dyck.  Fkockas,  Count  qe  Feeia 

From  a o’aalk  drawing,  in  the  oolleotioa  of  the  Duke  of  Devonshire, 
Chatsworth.  A study  for  the  engraving  by  Paul  Pontius 


Van  Dyck.  Frockas,  Count  de  Feria 

From  an  oil  grisaille  panel  in  the  collection  of  the  Duke  of  Bueoleuch,  Montagu 
House.  The  immediate  original  used  by  Paul  Pontius  in  his  engraving 


Paul  Pomros  aftbk  Van  Dyck.  Fhookas,  Codnt  be  Fehia 

Line-engra’ying.  From  an  impression  of  the  first  state,  with  MS.  lettering, 
in  the  British  Museum 


Van  Dtck.  Caeel  de  Mallert 
From  the  oil  painting  in  the  Alte  Pinakothek,  Munich 
Reproduced,  by  permission,  from  a photograph  by  Franz  Hanfstaengl 


Van  Dtck.  Carel  de  Mallery 


From  a chalk  drawing  in  the  collection  of  the  Duke  of  Devonshire, 
Chatsworth.  A study  for  the  engraving  by  Vorsterman 


Van  Dyck.  Carel  de  Mallert 

From  an  oil  grisaille  panel  in  the  eollection  of  the  Duke  of  Bucoleuch,  Montagu 
House.  The  immediate  original  used  by  Vorsterman  in  his  engraving 


Lucas  Voestsieman  after  Van  Dtcs.  Cabel  de  Mallebt 

Line-engraving.  From  an  impression  of  the  second  state  in  the  Britisli  Mu- 
seum. The  hrst  state,  before  all  lettering,  is  also  in  the  British  Museum,  but  in 
slightly  damaged  impression 


Another  portrait,  that  of  Caret  de  Mallery,  is  repro- 
duced in  four  stages:  I,  the  large  picture  in  Munich;  II, 
the  Chatsworth  chalk  study;  III,  the  Buccleuch  panel; 
IV,  the  engraving  by  Lucas  Vorsterman.  If  Van  Dyck 
made  his  chalk  sketch  of  Mallery  after  the  large  picture, 
it  seems  strange  that  he  should  have  reversed  the  compo- 
sition. But  perhaps  he  deliberately  used  a mirror  in  his 
sketch,  so  that  the  engraving  should  turn  out  in  the  same 
direction  as  the  Munich  picture.  Otherwise  one  is  al- 
most tempted  to  think  that  the  Munich  picture  might 
have  been  painted  with  the  aid  of  the  print.  Here  again 
there  is  no  diminuendo  in  quality  from  the  Chatsworth 
sketch  to  the  Buccleuch  panel. 

Moreover,  apart  from  the  question  of  comparative 
quality,  we  have  to  meet  the  inscription  Van  Dyck  pinxit 
on  the  engravings,  which  can  only  refer  to  the  grisaille 
panels,  except  in  the  minority  of  cases  where  larger 
pictures  existed.  This  in  itself  is  a strong  argument  for 
the  authenticity  of  the  grisailles. 


63 


II 

E will  now  approach  in  more  detail  the  etched 
portraits,  which  involve  further  questions  of 
authenticity  by  no  means  easy  of  solution. 
First  as  to  the  respective  development  of  the 
etchings  before  and  in  the  edition  of  Gillis  Hendricx:  — 

Five  of  the  etched  plates  remained  practically  un- 
touched in  later  states  except  for  the  addition  of  a 
border  line,  i.e. ; — 

Pieter  Brueghel,  the  younger;  Jodocus  de  Momper; 
Erasmus;  Jan  Snellinx;  Justus  Sustermans. 

Five  others  were  unelaborated  except  for  an  engraved 
background,  i.e.:  — 

Jan  Brueghel;  Frans  Francken;  Adam  van  Noort; 
Lucas  Vorsterman;  Jan  de  Wael. 

In  one  other  {Paul  Pontius)  a similar  dark  background 
was  added  with  cross-hatched  etching,  and  the  face  was 
heavily  and  regularly  worked  over  with  the  graver. 

Four,  in  which  the  whole  subject  was  lightly  indi- 
cated in  etching,  were  elaborated  throughout  with  the 
graver,  i.e.:  — 


64 


Van  Dyck.  Paul  Pontius 

Etching,  From  an  impression  of  the  first  state  in  the  British  Museum 


: \ '*‘1 

* ^ ,-T-  • 


Van  Dyck.  Paul  Pontius 

Etching  and  line-engraving.  From  an  impression  of  the  sixth  state  in 
the  British  Museum 

The  chief  difference  to  be  noted,  apart  from  the  addition  of  the  etched  back- 
ground, is  the  graver  work  in  the  face,  which  detracts  greatly  from  the  vivid- 
ness and  subtlety  of  expression 


Antonis  CorneKssen;  Antoine  Triest;  Jan  Waverius; 
Willem  de  Fos. 

In  the  first  three  of  these,  the  heads  were  less  drasti- 
cally elaborated  than  the  Pontius,  and  chiefly  in  etching. 
The  Willem  de  Fos  was  more  regularly  retouched  with  the 
graver  on  the  face. 

Finally  four  etchings  were  of  heads  alone,  i.e. : — 

Anthony  Van  Dyck;  Paul  de  Fos;  Frans  Snyders; 
Philippe,  Baron  Le  Roy. 

These  had  bodies  added  with  the  graver,  the  portrait 
of  Van  Dyck  being  set  on  a pedestal  and  used  as  the  title- 
page  to  the  series.  The  portrait  of  Le  Roy  is  never  found 
incorporated  in  editions  of  the  Iconography. 

Now  of  the  elaborations  the  most  defensible  case  is 
where  engraved  backgrounds  alone  are  added.  Even  an 
artist  might  reasonably  hold  that  the  dark  ground  added 
strength  and  stability  to  the  subject,  and  in  no  wise 
detracted  from  its  concentration.  Van  Dyck  himself 
was  certainly  responsible  for  the  etching  of  a similar 
dark  ground  in  the  head  of  Paul  de  Fos  with  its  patches 
of  false  biting,  and  he  might  even  be  responsible  for  the 
etched  background  added  in  the  second  state  of  the 
Paul  Pontius,  i.e.,  before  the  edition  of  Gillis  Hendricx. 

Van  Dyck  might  also  in  theory  have  consented  to  the 
addition  of  a body  to  the  etchings  of  which  he  had  only 
done  the  head.  But  in  practice  he  could  hardly,  I think, 
have  sanctioned  the  publication  of  such  an  atrociously 
bad  body  as  the  one  added  by  Jan  Meyssens  to  the  Paul 
de  Fos,  and  carried  further  by  Schelte  a Bolswert  for 
Gillis  Hendricx.  The  body  of  the  Snyders,  engraved  by 
Jacob  Neefs,  is  a much  better  piece  of  work,  for  all  its 
damage  to  the  pure  effect  of  the  early  state,  but  as  the 
body  was  not  added  before  the  edition  of  Hendricx  there 


69 


is  no  definite  evidence  that  it  was  completed  in  Van 
Dyck’s  life-time  under  his  direction.  But  a touched 
counterproof  of  the  first  state  of  the  Portrait  of  Himself 
in  the  British  Museum  certainly  proves  that  the  master 
directed  the  elaboration  of  this  plate,  no  doubt  with  the 
idea  of  its  use  as  title-page. 

Of  the  four  others  which  were  elaborated  throughout, 
the  Willem  de  Vos,  was  not  so  completed  until  the  edi- 
tion of  Gillis  Hendricx,  so  that  Van  Dyck’s  culpability  is 
again  uncertain.  On  the  other  hand  the  Cornelissen, 
Triest,  and  Waverius  were  already  elaborated  in  the  im- 
pressions published  by  Van  den  Enden,  i.e.,  undoubtedly 
during  Van  Dyck’s  life-time.  Now  these  are  the  three 
etchings  which  only  bear  Van  Dyck’s  name  as  painter 
{Van  Dyck  pinxit)  the  other  portrait  etchings  all  being 
signed  fecit  aqua  forti.  And  the  etched  inscriptions  fecit 
aqua  for ti  were  certainly  for  the  most  part  Van  Dyck’s, 
as  they  were  already  on  the  plate  before  Hendricx’s 
edition  except  in  the  case  of  the  Portrait  of  Himself,  the 
Erasmus  and  the  Willem  de  Vos.^  Moreover,  the  differ- 
entiation of  pinxit  et  fecit  aqua  forti  (in  the  case  of  the 
Snyders)  shows  that  the  artist  was  careful  in  his  use  of 
terms. 

Apart  from  the  discussion  of  comparative  artistic 
quality  in  these  three  etchings,  the  natural  inference  is 
to  accept  the  inscription  as  it  stands,  and  not  attribute 


‘ The  inscription  on  the  Le  Roy  (W.  p.  69,  C)  Ant.  Van  Dyck  faciem 
delineavit  et  fecit  aqua  forti  may  be  posthumous,  but  its  very  explicit- 
ness would  gain  it  credence.  But  one  also  finds  the  MS.  signature 
Antonius  Van  Dyck  fecit  on  an  impression  of  the  first  state  in  the  British 
Museum.  The  signature  on  the  Reed  offered  to  Christ  is  certainly 
posthumous,  but  no  other  engraver’s  name  is  given.  Titian  and  his 
Mistress  is  not  signed  at  all,  but  as  the  dedication  is  from  Van  Dyck, 
there  is  every  documentary  reason,  apart  from  its  quality,  to  accept 
the  etching  as  Van  Dyck’s. 


70 


Van  Dyck.  Willem  de  Vos 

Etching.  From  an  impression  of  the  first  state,  touched  by  hand,  in 
sepia,  in  the  British  Museum 


Van  Dyck.  Antonis  Cornelissen 

From  the  oil  grisaille  panel,  the  immediate  original  used  in  the  etching, 
in  the  collection  of  the  Duke  of  Buccleuch,  Montagu  House 


Van  Dyck  (oa  Lucas  Vobsterman  ?).  Antonis  Cornelissen 

Etching.  From  an  impression  of  the  first  state,  with  MS.  lettering, 
in  the  British  Museum 


i 


to  the  master  the  etching  which  he  did  not  claim.  The 
attribution  of  these  three  etchings  to  Van  Dyck  does 
not  in  fact  go  back  much  more  than  a century.  More- 
over, in  the  case  of  the  Cornelissen,  the  existence  of  the 
painting,  i.e.,  the  oil  grisaille  at  Montagu  House,  sup- 
ports the  literal  reading  of  the  inscription.  It  seems  to 
me  very  unlikely  that  Van  Dyck  would  have  prepared 
an  oil  grisaille  if  he  himself  were  doing  the  etching,  and 
carrying  it  out  as  far  as  was  done  in  this  example.  This 
assumption  would  of  course  be  invalidated  if  an  oil 
grisaille  were  found  which  was  certainly  the  original  of 
any  of  the  fifteen  etchings  signed  by  Van  Dyck  as 
etcher.  One  of  the  grisailles  in  Montagu  House  is  a 
Portrait  of  Himself.  But  it  is  in  the  complete  form,  as  en- 
graved for  Martin  van  den  Enden’s  edition  by  Vorster- 
man  (W.  79).  And  so,  although  the  head  is  in  a similar 
pose  to  the  etching,  the  grisaille  was  not  intended  for 
this,  but  for  the  engraving. 

Approaching  the  question  of  the  same  three  etchings 
from  the  side  of  comparative  quality  I have  alternate 
misgivings  and  confidence  as  to  their  authenticity. 

My  misgivings  in  relation  to  the  Cornelissen  are  sug- 
gested by  a comparison  with  the  etchings  of  Petrus 
Stevens  (engraved  by  Lucas  Vorsterman,  W.  93),  and  of 
Lucas  Vorsterman’s  version  of  the  Jodocus  de  Momper 
(W.  88)  both  of  which  present  points  of  similarity  of 
style,  and  both  of  which  have  been  attributed  to  Van 
Dyck.  It  is  hardly  likely  that  Van  Dyck  is  responsible 
for  the  preliminary  etching  of  the  engraved  version  of 
Momper  as  well  as  for  the  much  stronger  signed  etching 
of  the  same  subject.  On  the  other  hand  it  must  be  con- 
fessed that  it  differs  from  the  rather  heavily  dotted 
manner  generally  met  in  the  etching  of  Vorsterman’s 
plates,  e.g.  Caret  de  Mattery  (W.  86),  and  Delmont 


77 


(W.  78),  both  of  which  have  been  attributed  with  much 
less  reason  to  Van  Dyck.  Van  Dyck  himself,  in  his 
signed  etchings,  uses  more  dotted  work  than  in  the  sec- 
ond portrait  of  Mom'per,  but  Vorsterman’s  dotted  work 
in  his  finished  plates  shows  a far  closer  and  more 
monotonous  system  than  Van  Dyck’s.  And  the  MS. 
note  on  the  British  Museum  proof  of  the  second 
Mom'per,  i.e.,  questa  e la  forma  et  grandezza,  looks  very 
much  as  if  it  were  a note  of  the  master  himself,  ^ which 
might  incline  one  to  accept  the  etching  as  his  own. 

In  its  general  treatment  the  Stevens  is  even  more  like 
the  Cornelissen,  and  details  such  as  the  indication  of  the 
background  and  the  rather  curious  outlining  of  the 
hands,  are  points  of  similarity.  This  hand  of  the  Cornelis- 
sen, lacking  as  it  does  the  significant  drawing  and  outline 
of  all  the  signed  etchings,  is  a distinct  temptation  to 
scepticism.  I do  not  feel  that  the  Stevens,  any  more  than 
the  second  Momper,  has  the  strength  that  characterizes 
all  Van  Dyck’s  signed  etchings,  and  we  should  perhaps 
be  more  justified  on  the  whole  to  form  our  estimate 
of  the  style  of  Vorsterman’s  preliminary  etching  from 
these  examples,  than  to  expect  that  they  would  have  the 
more  regular  and  systematised  dotting  of  the  finished 
states,  the  only  form  in  which  most  of  them  are  known. 

Moreover  another  argument  against  the  acceptance  of 
the  etching  of  the  Stevens  as  Van  Dyck  is  the  existence 
of  Van  Dyck’s  grisaille  for  the  subject  in  the  series  at 
Montagu  House.  I would  grant  the  Cornelissen  a greater 
vigour  of  style  than  either  of  the  others,  and  a remark- 
ably close  resemblance  to  the  signed  Willem  de  Vos 
(W.  15),  but  would  still  incline  to  regard  Vorsterman  as 
the  author  of  both  its  etching  and  engraving. 

1 Cf.  Van  Dyck’s  Italian  notes  in  his  Sketch  Book  at  Chatsworth. 

78 


Lucas  Vohsterman  (or  Van  Dyck?).  Jodocus  de  Momper 

Etching.  From  an  impression  of  the  first  state  (Dutuit,  first  state;  Wibiral, 
trial  proof  before  the  first  state)  with  MS.  lettering,  in  the  British  Museum. 
Signed,  in  its  later  states,  by  Lucas  Vorsterman 


Van  Dyck.  Jodocus  de  Momper 
Etching.  From  an  impression  of  the  first  state  in  the  British  Museum 


i 


i 


-i 

i 

] 

J 

2i 

i 

i 


1 


Of  the  Waverius  only  two  proofs  of  the  first  state  are 
known  to  me,  one  at  Chatsworth,  the  other  in  the  col- 
lection of  Baron  Edmond  de  Rothschild  at  Paris.  In  the 
second  state,  reproduced,  there  are  already  touches  of 
the  burin  on  the  face,  which  are  without  doubt  from  the 
hand  of  Paul  Pontius,  who  completed  the  subject  in 
engraving.  The  etching,  seen  in  its  purity  only  in  the 
first  state,  is  remarkably  near  Van  Dyck  in  style.  Yet 
there  is  a certain  timidity  in  its  manner  which  fosters 
one’s  doubts.  In  general  Pontius’s  plates  show  a much 
purer  system  of  line-engraving  than  Vorsterman’s,  and 
I cannot  refer  to  another  preliminary  etching  of  any  of 
his  plates  in  this  style. 

It  is  curious  that  Vorsterman  himself  engraved  and 
signed  with  his  monogram  the  preliminary  stages  of  one 
of  the  plates  of  Philippe  Le  Roy  (W.  185),  which  was 
completed  by  Pontius.  But  the  etching  of  the  Waverius 
is  more  delicate  than  anything  by  or  attributed  to 
Vorsterman,  and  I would  sooner  regard  the  whole  work 
of  the  Waverius  as  by  Pontius,  than  suggest  so  complex 
a solution.  In  any  case,  as  far  as  preliminary  etching 
goes,  Paul  Pontius  is  a somewhat  unknown  quantity,  so 
that  if  one  does  not  regard  the  Waverius  etching  as 
worthy  of  Van  Dyck,  the  most  natural  resource  is  to 
accept  it  as  by  Pontius. 

The  Antoine  Triest  seems  to  me  a distinctly  stronger 
etching  than  the  Waverius,  and  I incline  to  doubt  its 
authenticity  less  than  either  the  Waverius  or  Cornelissen. 
But  the  second  plate  of  Jan  Snellinx  (W.  37)  shows  one 
how  nearly  Pieter  de  Jode  approached  Van  Dyck’s 
style  of  etching,  so  that  even  in  the  case  of  the  Triest, 
elaborated  by  the  same  engraver,  I cannot  entirely 
avoid  scepticism,  or  at  the  most  would  keep  an  open 

83 


mind.  Both  the  Waverius  and  the  Triest  follow  large 
pictures  by  Van  Dyck  (both  at  Petrograd)  more  closely 
than  most  of  the  subjects  in  the  Iconography  which 
were  ultimately  based  on  larger  paintings,  but  that 
can  hardly  be  regarded  as  seriously  impugning  the 
possibility  of  Van  Dyck  starting  the  plates  with  his 
own  etching. 

I have  brought  forward  no  clinching  arguments 
against  the  authenticity  of  any  of  these  three  plates 
{Cornelissen,  Triest,  and  Waverius)  on  the  basis  of  qual- 
ity. But  the  number  of  small  misgivings  may  amount 
to  more  when  added  to  the  earlier  argument  from  the 
documentary  side  of  signatures  alone.  On  the  other 
hand  the  Italian  MS.  note  on  the  British  Museum  im- 
pression of  the  etching  of  Vorsterman’s  Momper  (W. 
88)  is  a pivot  round  which  the  argument  might  easily 
swing  the  other  way. 

There  only  remain  two  other  etchings  attributed  to 
Van  Dyck  which  we  have  not  already  discussed,  i.e.  the 
copy  of  the  head  of  Philippe  Le  Roy  (W.  p.  69,  C.  I. 
copy),  and  the  version  of  Jan  Snellinx  engraved  by 
Pieter  de  Jode  (W.  37). 

The  Le  Roy  is  a good  copy  in  reverse  from  the  first 
state  of  Van  Dyck’s  etching,  with  plenty  of  vigour,  but 
entirely  without  the  subtlety  of  the  original.  It  has  been 
suggested  that  Van  Dyck  repeated  the  subject  after  an 
unsatisfactory  essay.  But  this  would  not,  I am  sure, 
account  for  the  complete  difference  in  quality  between 
the  two.  There  is  none  of  the  significant  force  of  the 
undisputed  etching,  in  the  outline  of  the  face  in  the 
other  version,  and  I could  not  for  a moment  regard 
the  latter  as  other  than  a copy. 

The  etching  of  Pieter  de  Jode’s  version  of  Jan  Snellinx 


84 


Van  Dyck  (?)  and  Paul  Pontius.  Jan  Waverius 

Etching  and  line-engraving.  From  an  impression  of  the  second  state, 
touched  by  hand,  in  light  sepia,  Indian  ink  and  body  colour,  in 
the  British  Museum 

There  are  already  touches  of  the  graver,  on  the  face,  in  this  state,  which  are, 
without  doubt,  by  the  hand  of  Paul  Pontius,  who  completed  the  subject  in  en- 
graving, The  first  state,  in  pure  etching,  is  only  known  in  two  impressions,  in 
the  collections  of  the  Duke  of  Devonshire,  and  Baron  Edmond  de  Rothschild 


PHILIPPVS  LE  ROY  KQVES 


Van  Dtck.  Philippe  Le  Rot 

Etching.  From  an  impression  of  the  first  state  with  MS.  lettering, 
in  the  British  Museum 


(W.  37)  is  remarkably  good,  and  very  closely  resembles 
Van  Dyck  in  its  method.  But  it  lacks  the  real  vigour  of 
the  master’s  touch,  and  as  such  would  need  the  strong- 
est document  to  support  the  attribution.  It  is  well  to 
leave  the  engravers  of  the  Rubens  school  some  virtue  in 
etching  in  addition  to  their  unrivalled  skill  in  the  use 
of  the  burin. 

In  speaking  of  Pieter  de  Jode’s  version  of  J an  Snellinx 
(W.  37),  and  Vorsterman’s  Jodocus  de  Momper  (W.  88), 
I have  carefully  avoided  using  the  term  copy.  They  are 
generally  described  as  copies  of  Van  Dyck’s  etchings, 
but  as  there  is  very  little  linear  correspondence  in  either 
pair,  and  considerable  differences  in  the  background  in 
the  Snellinx,  it  appears  to  me  far  more  probable  that 
they  were  based  on  oil  grisailles  no  longer  known.  That 
is  definitely  the  case  with  Vorsterman’s  version  of  the 
Van  Dyck  (W.  79),  which  is  directly  based  on  the 
Bu'ccleuch  grisaille,  its  head  being  similar  but  in  no 
wise  copied  from  the  master’s  original  etching.  A 
fourth  engraving  of  one  of  the  subjects  of  Van  Dyck’s 
etching,  the  plate  of  Paul  Pontius  by  the  engraver  him- 
self (W.  59),  represents  the  sitter  in  an  entirely  different 
pose  to  the  etching,  and  is  again  immediately  based  on 
another  grisaille  panel  at  Montagu  House. 

Now  this  distinction  between  “copy”  and  “different 
version”  has  a direct  bearing  on  one  of  the  general 
questions  we  had  already  broached,  i.e..  Van  Dyck’s 
attitude  towards  his  original  etchings  in  relation  to  the 
Iconography.  If  the  etchings  had  been  done  before  the 
engravings  (which  the  use  of  the  word  “copy”  in  regard 
to  the  latter  would  of  course  imply),  then  we  should 
almost  have  to  assume  that  either  Van  Dyck  or  his 
editor  had  preferred  to  publish  the  engravings  rather 

89 


than  the  etchings,  as  these  are  the  four  subjects  pub- 
lished in  Martin  van  den  Enden’s  series  which  also  exist 
in  original  etchings.  But,  as  it  stands.  Van  Dyck  might 
quite  well  have  etched  his  plates  after  his  engravers  had 
reproduced  the  grisailles,  and  as  Professor  Singer  has 
suggested,  1 might  have  done  his  etchings  “as  a sort  of 
protest  against  the  engravings  of  the  Iconography.” 
There  is  certainly  no  strong  reason  for  believing  that 
Van  Dyck  started  the  Iconography  with  the  idea  of 
doing  the  preliminary  etching  to  all  the  plates,  leaving 
the  elaboration  to  his  engraver,  and  that  he  only  gave 
up  this  idea  on  experiencing  its  labour  or  its  imaccept- 
ability.  If  he  had  started  with  this  intention  we  should 
expect  to  find  original  etchings  among  the  portraits  of 
the  first  class,  including  Princes  and  Military  Com- 
manders, with  which  the  series  commenced.  But  this 
is  not  the  case.  By  far  the  greater  number  of  his  original 
etchings  are  portraits  of  artists,  which,  if  Martin  van 
den  Enden  had  ever  issued  them,  would  have  belonged 
to  the  third  class.  This  point  cannot  however  be 
pressed  to  a definite  conclusion  as  the  engraving  of  the 
subjects  in  the  three  different  classes  need  not  have  been 
chronological,  even  if,  according  to  Wibiral’s  argument, 
the  three  classes  were  published  as  separate  series  in  the 
order  that  we  have  given  above. 

Granting  for  the  moment  that  our  argument  has 
inclined  to  the  rejection  of  the  Cornelissen,  Triest,  and 
Waverius,  the  only  generally  accepted  Van  Dyck  etch- 
ings issued  by  Martin  van  den  Enden,  we  are  somewhat 
less  directly  driven  to  the  conclusion  that  Van  Dyck  ap- 

' Etchings  of  Van  Dyck,  London  (Hodder  & Stoughton),  1905.  The 
volume  is  the  more  valuable  for  the  reproduction  of  several  rare  early 
proofs  from  private  collections. 


90 


Van  Dyck.  Jan  Snellinx 

Etching,  From  an  impression  of  the  6rst  state  in  the  British  Museum 


PEMU  KT  Rf.  nWvi  D.  ANTONIVS  THIRST  FJISCOPN’S  GANdAVTXSIS  ^ 
TOPAIHHA  DO.MINY  s"  RAR’ONrs  COMES  HVt,ROH£M.lEN,SIS  FT  RF.OI-ft  XA 
A CnNSILlp  STATVS  ETC. 

niiiiim^- ■* - 


Van  Dyck  (?)  and  Pieter  de  Jode,  the  Yodnqer 
Antoine  Tkiest,  Bishop  of  Ghent 

Etching  and  line-engraving.  From  an  impression  of  the  second  state  in 
the  British  Museum 

The  first  state,  in  pure  etching,  is  only  known  in  the  counterproof  in 
the  collection  of  the  Duke  of  Devonshire,  Chatsworth 


proved  of  the  elaboration  of  his  original  etchings  by  the 
engravers.  He  may  have  been  more  ready  to  touch  the 
early  etched  states  of  these  three  portraits,  with  a view 
to  their  obscuration  beneath  heavy  line-engraving,  if 
they  were  done  from  the  outset  by  other  engravers  than 
himself  simply  with  the  idea  of  reproducing  a painting 
or  oil  grisaille.  The  touched  proof  of  his  Portrait  of 
Himself  in  the  British  Museum  shows  that  he  certainly 
sanctioned  elaboration  in  this  case,  but  it  was  of  course 
an  exceptional  instance,  where  his  owm  portrait  was 
required  to  embellish  a title-page.  We  have  already 
discussed  the  probabilities  of  Van  Dyck’s  part  in  the 
engraving  of  four  of  the  fifteen  signed  etchings  of  Hen- 
dricx’s  edition  of  the  Iconography,  but  considering  that 
ten  of  the  fifteen  suffered  no  drastic  elaborations  at  all, 
we  may  infer  that  Van  Dyck’s  feeling  was  on  the  whole 
in  favour  of  the  unadulterated  style  of  these  examples. 
If  he  sanctioned  some  elaborations  on  the  basis  of  his 
original  etching,  it  may  have  been  partly  owing  to  the 
pressure  of  his  publisher,  or  the  outlook  of  the  purchas- 
ing public,  who  desired  finished  plates  in  the  conven- 
tional manner.  Happily  this  pressure  did  not  overwhelm 
the  more  purely  artistic  attitude.  Martin  van  den 
Enden  may  have  failed  to  persuade  Van  Dyck  to  submit 
the  majority  to  the  engravers’  embellishments,  and 
consequently  may  not  have  wished  to  include  them  with 
the  uniform  series.  And  Van  Dyck  may  himself  have 
been  convinced  of  the  artistic  superiority  of  the  style  of 
his  portrait  etching  over  the  finished  engravings  de- 
manded by  the  public  taste,  and  may  have  done  them 
from  the  inception  more  for  their  own  sake  than  with 
any  desire  of  issuing  large  editions  with  the  rest  of  the 
engravings.  Certainly  during  his  lifetime  such  was  the 


95 


case,  and  he  must  have  remained  in  possession  of  the 
original  plates,  pulling  occasional  impressions,  the  rare 
proofs  before  publisher’s  address,  sometimes  before  all 
etched  letters,  and  occasionally  with  his  own  autograph 
signature,  for  the  rare  appreciators  of  these  finest  flowers 
of  his  genius. 

If  Van  Dyck  sinned,  even  in  these  most  perfect  of 
his  works,  it  was  through  his  irrepressible  inclination  to- 
wards the  embellishment  of  his  subjects,  a fault  into 
which  he  fell  chiefly  in  the  days  of  his  popularity  at  the 
English  court.  Even  in  his  etchings  of  Flemish  artists, 
his  Antwerp  friends  and  contemporaries,  we  already  feel 
this  tendency  towards  idealization.  Comparison  of  his 
etching  of  the  engraver  Lucas  Forsterman,  with  its  digni- 
fied countenance  and  swagger  bearing,  with  the  some- 
what wizened  features  of  the  same  engraver  as  drawn 
by  Lievens  and  etched  by  Frans  van  den  Wyngaerde, 
will  at  once  disclose  Van  Dyck’s  rosy  vision  of  his 
sitters,  that  incomparable  key  to  success.  But  none  of 
the  etchings  shows  the  mannerisms,  e.g.  in  detail  such 
as  the  hands,  which  developed  more  insistently  after 
Van  Dyck’s  settlement  in  England,  leading  one  to  ex- 
pect that  they  were  for  the  most  part  the  product  of  his 
activity  in  Antwerp  between  1626  and  1632.  Apart 
from  this  temptation  to  flattery.  Van  Dyck’s  etchings 
are  faultless  both  as  portrait  or  prints,  and  full  of  com- 
pelling inspiration.  They  are  as  modem  in  their  style 
to-day  as  they  were  at  the  time  of  their  production,  and 
have  remained  the  standard  and  commanded  the  emu- 
lation of  all  that  is  greatest  among  recent  portrait 
etching. 


96 


Van  Dyck.  Lucas  Vohsterman 

Etching.  From  an  impression  of  the  first  state  in  the  British  Museum 


Fhanb  ¥an  den  Wyngaebde.  Lucas  Vosstehman 

Etched  by  Frans  van  den  Wyngaerde,  after  a drawing  by  Lievens.  Repro- 
duced as  a contrast  to  Van  Dyck’s  etching  of  the  same  subject,  to  throw  into 
greater  reKef  the  dignity  with  which  Van  Dyck  adorns  his  sitters 

From  an  impression  in  the  British  Museum 


LIST  OF  VAN  DYCK’S  ORIGINAL  ETCHINGS 


(The  authenticity  of  those  marked  with  an  obelus  (t)  is 
called  in  question:  the  references  are  to  Wibiral,  and  Dutuit.) 


Jan  Brueghel,  the  elder W.  1.;  D.  1. 

The  only  elaboration  in  later  state  was  the  addition  of  an 
engraved  background.  Signed  Antonins  van  Dyck  fecit  aqua 
forti  (before  Hendricx’s  edition). 

Pieter  Brueghel,  the  younger W.  2.;  D.  2. 

Not  elaborated  by  an  engraver.  Signed  Ant.  van  Dyck 
fecit  aqua  forti  (before  Hendricx’s  edition), 
t Antonis  Cornelissen W.  3.;  D.  17. 


Elaborated  in  etching  and  engraving  by  Lucas  Vorster- 
man.  Signed  Ant.  van  Dyck  pinxit  (Martin  van  den  Enden’s 
edition,  i.e.,  before  Hendricx.)  On  an  impression  before 
letters  in  the  British  Museum  (D.  17,  ii)  the  MS.  inscrip- 
tion is  Ant.  van  Dyck  pinxit.  L.  V or  sternum  sculp. 

Sir  Anthony  Van  Dyck W.  4. ; D.  3. 

Head  only.  The  composition  elaborated  in  engraving  by 
Jacob  Neefs.  The  head  was  placed  on  a pedestal,  and  the 
front  of  the  pedestal  used  for  the  title  of  the  ‘Iconography.’ 
Signed  Ant.  van  Dyck  fecit  aqua  forti  (in  Hendricx’s  edition). 

Desiderius  Erasmus.  After  Holbein W.  5.;  D.  4. 

Not  elaborated  by  an  engraver.  Signed  Ant.  van  Dyck 
fecit  aqua  forti  (Hendricx’s  edition). 

Frans  Francken,  the  younger W.  6.;  D.  5. 

The  only  elaboration  in  later  state  was  the  addition  of 
an  architectural  cornice  and  an  engraved  background. 
Signed  Ant.  van  Dyck  fecit  aqua  forti  (before  Hendricx’s 
edition). 

JoDocus  DE  Momper W.  7.;  D.  7. 

Not  elaborated  by  an  engraver.  Signed  Anton  van  Dyck 
fecit  aqua  forti  (before  Hendricx’s  edition). 

Adam  van  Noort W.  8.;D.  8. 

The  only  elaboration  in  later  state  was  the  addition  of 
the  dark  comer  of  a piece  of  architecture.  Signed  Ant.  van 
Dyck  fecit  aqua  forti  (before  Hendricx’s  edition). 

101 


Paul  Pontius W.  9.;  D.  9. 

The  only  elaborations  in  later  state  were  the  addition  of 
a regularly  etched  background,  and  graver  work  on  the  face. 
Signed  Ant.  van  Dyck  fecit  aqua  forti  (before  Hendricx’s 
edition). 

Jan  Snellinx W.  10.;  D.  10. 

Not  elaborated  by  an  engraver.  Signed  Ant.  van  Dyck 
fecit  aqua  forti  (before  Hendricx’s  edition). 

Frans  Snyders W.  11.;  D.  11. 

Head  only.  The  figure  completed  and  the  plate  otherwise 
elaborated  in  engraving  by  Jacob  Neefs.  Signed  Ant.  van 
Dyck  pinxit  et  fecit  aqua  forti  (before  Hendricx’s  edition). 

Justus  Sustermans W.  12.;  D.  12. 

Not  elaborated  bj'^  an  engraver.  Signed  Ant.  van  Dyck 
fecit  aqua  forti  (before  Hendricx’s  edition). 

fANTOiNE  Triest,  Bishop  OF  Ghent W.  13.;  D.  22. 

Elaborated  in  engraving  by  Pieter  de  Jode,  the  younger. 
Signed  Ant.  van  Dyck  pinxit  (Martin  van  den  Enden’s  edi- 
tion, i.e.  before  Hendricx). 

Lucas  Vorsterman .W.  14.;  D.  13. 

The  only  elaboration  in  later  state  was  the  addition  of 
an  engraved  background.  Signed  Ant.  van  Dyck  fecit  aqua 
forti  (before  Hendricx’s  edition). 

Willem  de  Vos W.  15.;  D.  14. 

Elaborated  in  engraving  by  Schelte  Bolswert.  Signed 
Ant.  van  Dyck  fecit  aqua  forti  (in  Hendricx’s  edition). 

Paul  de  Vos W.  16. ; D.  15. 

Head  and  part  of  background  only.  Body  added,  and 
plate  otherwise  elaborated  in  etching,  probably  by  Jan 
Meyssens,  and  in  engraving  in  certain  details  by  Schelte  h 
Bolswert.  Signed  Anton  van  Dyck  fecit  (edition  of  Jan 
Meyssens,  before  Hendricx). 

Jan  de  Wael W.  17.;D.  16. 

The  only  elaboration  was  the  addition  of  an  engraved 
background  (in  State  ii) . Signed  Ant.  van  Dyck  fecit  aqua 
forti  (before  Hendricx’s  edition). 

fjAN  Waverius W.  18.;  D.  23. 

Elaborated  in  engraving  by  Paul  Pontius.  Signed  Ant. 
van  Dyck  pinxit  (Martin  van  den  Enden’s  edition,  i.e.  be- 
fore Hendricx). 


102 


Philippe  Lb  Roy.  W.  p.  69,  C.;  D.  6. 

Head  only.  The  body  added  and  the  plate  otherwise 
elaborated  in  engraving  by  some  anonymous  artist.  Signed 
(posthumously?)  in  a later  state  Ant.  van  Dyck  faciem 
ddineavit  et  fecit  aqua  forti.  But  first  state  in  British  Mu- 
seum has  MS.  signature  Antonins  van  Dyck  fecit.  Does 
not  occur  in  any  edition  of  the  Iconography. 

The  Reed  offered  to  Christ W.  p.  68,  A.  ; D.  B. 

Elaborated  in  mixed  etching  and  engraving  by  some 
anonymous  artist  (possibly  L.  Vorsterman).  Signed  (post- 
humously) in  a later  state  Anton,  van  Dyck  imenit  et  fecit 
aqyji  forti. 

Titian  and  his  Mistress.  After  Titian.  .W.  p.  69,  B.;  D.  A. 

Elaborated  in  mixed  etching  and  engraving  by  an  anony- 
mous artist  (but  certainly  the  same  hand  as  the  preceding). 
With  dedication  by  Van  Dyck  to  Lucas  van  Uffel.  No  other 
signature.  Unless  a further  original  is  lost,  the  etching  may 
have  been  based  on  the  picture  attributed  to  Titian  in  the 
collection  of  Captain  Archibald  Morrison,  at  Basildon  Park 
(Third  National  Loan  Exhibition,  Grosvenor  Gallery,  1914- 
15,  No.  32;  Crowe  & Cavalcaselle,  Titian^  London,  1877, 
Vol.  II,  pp.  138,  139;  Gronau,  Titian,  London,  1904,  p. 
231).  I have  kept  to  the  usual  title  applied  to  the  etching, 
but  the  subject  has  also  been  called  Titian  and  his  Daughter, 
possibly  in  allegorical  reference  to  Lavinia’s  early  death. 


103 


THE  PRELIMINAEY  ETCHING  OP  THE  FOLLOWING  EN- 
GRAVINGS HAS  BEEN  ATTRIBUTED  TO  VAN  DYCK,  BUT 
ON  LITTLE  FOUNDATION 

Philippe  Lb  Roy.  W.  p.  69.  C.  i (copy). 

The  second  plate,  showing  the  head  alone. 

Jan  Snellinx W.  37. 

Signed  by  Pieter  de  Jode.  The  same  subject  as  Van 
Dyck’s  etching  (W.  10). 

Deodatus  Delmont W.  78. 

Signed  by  Lucas  Vorsterman. 

Carel  db  Mallbry W.  86. 

Signed  by  Lucas  Vorsterman. 

JODOCUS  DE  Momper W.  88. 

Signed  by  Lucas  Vorsterman.  The  same  subject  as  Van 
Dyck’s  etcWng  (W.  7). 

Petrus  Stevens W.  93. 

Signed  by  Lucas  Vorsterman. 


104 


THIS  EDITION 

CONSISTS  OF  FOUR  HUNDRED  AND  FIFTY  COPIES 
OF  WHICH  FOUR  HUNDRED  ARE  FOR 
SALE 

THIS  IS  NUMBER 


% ' V 


S'Jk,-:-  ■ 


‘I 


'■'r 


•V. 


V 


it 

.1* 


I 


«• 


pS//b 


GETTY  CENTER  LIBR 

3 3125  00450 


1744 


